Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

Storm Rider · May 13, 2013

You have some very flawed views. Homosexuality is an orientation, not a sexual act. Adultery is a sexual act. Having sex with the same gender is a sexual act. So comparing someone who is gay to someone who commits adultery is apples to oranges. They are not related.
How many times does the church have to explain to you and others the difference between being gay which is not a sin and having sex with the same gender which is viewed as a sin by the church. Are you so caught up in this diatribe you are on that you completely ignore the teachings of the inspired leadership of the church? Until you are able to get this difference clearly in your mind, talking about these other issues is pointless. If you are completely willing to dismiss the views of the church leaders on this subject, why would I think you would listen to what I have to say?

Just curious; do you support the inspired leadership of the church? It seems odd that you would call them inspired and then ignore them so blithely.

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

Gree0232,
Your thoughts are not my thoughts, nor the thoughts of any other LDS individual that I personally know.
What you have expressed is simply hostile and insulting.
Our church believes homosexuality a sin. We believe we should love the sinner. I think you are out of line and likely doing enormous damage to people's understanding of my religion and the gospel.

It is also an innaccurate description of many civilizations and societies. I personally believe going back to OT type thinking, laws and regulations would not be unlike Sharia law which so many in the former Confederacy decry so vehemently.

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

Just curious; do you support the inspired leadership of the church? It seems odd that you would call them inspired and then ignore them so blithely.

Actually, it is you who is ignoring the inspired leadership at present on several counts. That is a very below the belt type of argument that you don't support the inspiration if you disagree.

Bikeemikey · May 13, 2013

Just curious; do you support the inspired leadership of the church? It seems odd that you would call them inspired and then ignore them so blithely.

I have seen no indication that he is ignoring them blithely... It seems you have again failed to understand the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts.

gree0232 · May 13, 2013

Gree0232,
Your thoughts are not my thoughts, nor the thoughts of any other LDS individual that I personally know.
What you have expressed is simply hostile and insulting.
Our church believes homosexuality a sin. We believe we should love the sinner. I think you are out of line and likely doing enormous damage to people's understanding of my religion and the gospel.

Stop. This is exactly the McCarthyistic tactic on this subject that I reject and reject without question.

Science is out of line? Tell me, what in our faith prevents us from stating that the human genome is mapped? That there is no gay gene? That the studies on the biological causes are, at best, inconclusive? That they produce no evidence of biological causation? What exactly is wrong or out of line of having met, and indeed providing documentation, about people who have dabbled with homosexuality ... and then stopped? Who switched?

And yet we are supposed to, ostensibly because we are good lds men, ignore than because someone screams, "I am just born that way!"

Rubbish.

What I reject about this entire process is the demonization of people who happen to hold a different opinion, who at no point state anything that advocates violence or intolerance of homosexuality ... but, draws a line at advocating or encouraging what is, quite obviously, a form of sexuality. We can still tell a person that adultery is wrong ... that promiscuity is wrong ... and people still do those. Homosexuality however, with no proof whatsoever, is obviously is a category all by itself.

And unless you agree with us ... we will subject you to insults and claim that you cannot be a member of the lds church?

That brother is the kind of intolerance that crosses the line.

You want to be gay, more power to you. You have the gift of agency, and that brings you the consequences of exercising that agency. If you want to be promiscuous, again, more power to you. No member of this church, or anyone else for that matter, is going to hold a gun to your head and force you NOT to do something. But, in either case, should we choose to act on them, we lose certain privileges in this church. And the sob story of just being born that way is irrelevant in both cases.

I doubt very seriously that anyone would buy the excuse that some young dandy was simply promiscuous because he was born that way.

You are free to disagree, you are not free to simply demonize someone because you disagree.

You find something that I have written that is without documentation, and out of line. And simply disagreeing with the homosexual agenda, in and of itself, is not grounds for a smear.

gree0232 · May 13, 2013

Your requirement for additional evidence is understandable and reasonable. It is however not something I can provide.
The observation that opposition to this specific law may have had to do with non-gay considerations is warranted and a very legitimate and important one.
Let's try a different approach:
First, it seems important for you the the church is not anti-gay.
Second, you seem to have a definition of being anti-something that is hard to reconcile with how I see it in common use today.
So let's start with something basic: your church is anti-sin. We are opposed to all sin and actively work to make this know and ask govts not to take steps that are seen to normalize sin.
Homosexual acts are a sin.
The church is anti-homosexual acts.
I think these is a reasonable line to thinking and reflects the churches current position on the matter. Would you agree with this??
The problem historically is that church rhetoric and membership has only recently perfected this particular line of communication on the issue.
Twenty years ago it would have been homosexuality is a sin, thereby making the church anti-homosexual (anti-gay).
The nuance of the current days communication by the church on the subject, in my opinion, is much better. It makes it easier to hate the sin and love the sinner.
As such, I don't think that we need to look at what the church has done in the public sphere at all to arrive at the conclusion we have been anti-gay. It is sufficient to say the church is anti-sin, being gay was a sin, therefore we were anti-gay.
Right now in the church being gay is not a sin. Engaging in gay acts is a sin. We have moved from being anti-gay to anti-gay acts.

What you write is essentially semantics.

No matter what, when you disagree with the current homosexual agenda, it is, by definition, anti-gay - for they are the 'gay' are they not?

The question is whether or not resisting their political agenda is a form of bigotry or not.

The legal definition of discrimination is: In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.

Generally, this has flowed that there is some immutable characteristic upon which a frivolous or arbitrary distinction rests, gender, race, etc. Therefore, a person who denies employment based solely on skin color is legally guilty of discrimination.

Conversely, questions of character are not immutable. You can have a policy that bars people with convictions of theft, for example, from getting a job in your company. That is NOT discrimination. The same goes for sexual character. You can have a clause in a contract that states any adultery will result in termination, its quite legal. You can have a policy that those who engage in polygamy will be immediately excommunicated. Its quite legal. And teh reason is that the decisions to engage in these antics are decisions - you are not simply 'born' with the immutable need to be a polygamist.

The question before us now is whether or not homosexuality is simply a immutable characteristic, one that is akin to skin color rather than adultery. I have made the case in one direction, and I have yet to see someone actually make the case in the other direction ... other than to simply state that it is so,

The question then becomes, is it discrimination to disagree with homosexuals that their sexual preference is immutable?

That statement of disagreement, in and of itself, is not discrimination. It imparts no actual harm to anyone, it simply reject the statement of someone else. That person may be offended that you reject their opinion, but, freedom from offense is not a guarantee provided against discrimination.

In the larger point, I am somewhat sympathetic to homosexual marriage - though not the current argumentation. The reasoning is because I am familiar with those aspects of the homosexual community that the community is currently thrusting into the shadows. It is far and away the most highly sexualized culture I have ever seen. Far an away. It dwarfs the fraternity culture. As CB writes that gay marriage is legal in Spain, I wonder if he has ever seen the reality of Barcelona's gay culture? The hedonism that proliferates among the culture? The anonymous sex that very often spills from the clubs onto the streets and parks of Barcelona?

So yes, marriage, the commitment to only one man or woman, stands as a stark improvement to the highly sexualized hedonism that prevelates the homosexual community.

Interestingly enough, it was knowledge of exactly this aspect of the homosexual community that, in the UK, caused lawmakers who authorized gay marriage to put in the draft a clause that barred adultery from being a grounds for divorce in gay marriage. Now exactly what kind of marriage is that?

Bikeemikey · May 13, 2013

Stop. This is exactly the McCarthyistic tactic on this subject that I reject and reject without question.
Science is out of line? Tell me, what in our faith prevents us from stating that the human genome is mapped? That there is no gay gene? That the studies on the biological causes are, at best, inconclusive? That they produce no evidence of biological causation? What exactly is wrong or out of line of having met, and indeed providing documentation, about people who have dabbled with homosexuality ... and then stopped? Who switched?
And yet we are supposed to, ostensibly because we are good lds men, ignore than because someone screams, "I am just born that way!"
Rubbish.
What I reject about this entire process is the demonization of people who happen to hold a different opinion, who at no point state anything that advocates violence or intolerance of homosexuality ... but, draws a line at advocating or encouraging what is, quite obviously, a form of sexuality. We can still tell a person that adultery is wrong ... that promiscuity is wrong ... and people still do those. Homosexuality however, with no proof whatsoever, is obviously is a category all by itself.
And unless you agree with us ... we will subject you to insults and claim that you cannot be a member of the lds church?
That brother is the kind of intolerance that crosses the line.
You want to be gay, more power to you. You have the gift of agency, and that brings you the consequences of exercising that agency. If you want to be promiscuous, again, more power to you. No member of this church, or anyone else for that matter, is going to hold a gun to your head and force you NOT to do something. But, in either case, should we choose to act on them, we lose certain privileges in this church. And the sob story of just being born that way is irrelevant in both cases.
I doubt very seriously that anyone would buy the excuse that some young dandy was simply promiscuous because he was born that way.
You are free to disagree, you are not free to simply demonize someone because you disagree.
You find something that I have written that is without documentation, and out of line. And simply disagreeing with the homosexual agenda, in and of itself, is not grounds for a smear.

What are you talking about?

It doesn't matter if people choose to be gay or are born gay - you said so your self - so why are you going on about it so much?

No one gets a free pass on anything based on being born a certain way.

You have a real bee in your bonnet over this but it is a concern that doesn't even really make sense. Who is asking for a free pass? The homosexual community? How so?

Your scientific data may or may not be as powerful as you think... Either way your tone of expression is far to hostile for my taste.

Bikeemikey · May 13, 2013

Gree0232,

You seem to believe that the most important question is whether homosexuality is born or bred.

Given that you have already claimed actions should not be treated differently based on whether the motivators were born in us or not I fail to see why your insistence on this distinction means anything.

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

What you write is essentially semantics.
No matter what, when you disagree with the current homosexual agenda, it is, by definition, anti-gay - for they are the 'gay' are they not?
The question is whether or not resisting their political agenda is a form of bigotry or not.
The legal definition of discrimination is: InConstitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.
Generally, this has flowed that there is some immutable characteristic upon which a frivolous or arbitrary distinction rests, gender, race, etc. Therefore, a person who denies employment based solely on skin color is legally guilty of discrimination.
Conversely, questions of character are not immutable. You can have a policy that bars people with convictions of theft, for example, from getting a job in your company. That is NOT discrimination. The same goes for sexual character. You can have a clause in a contract that states any adultery will result in termination, its quite legal. You can have a policy that those who engage in polygamy will be immediately excommunicated. Its quite legal. And teh reason is that the decisions to engage in these antics are decisions - you are not simply 'born' with the immutable need to be a polygamist.
The question before us now is whether or not homosexuality is simply a immutable characteristic, one that is akin to skin color rather than adultery. I have made the case in one direction, and I have yet to see someone actually make the case in the other direction ... other than to simply state that it is so,
The question then becomes, is it discrimination to disagree with homosexuals that their sexual preference is immutable?
That statement of disagreement, in and of itself, is not discrimination. It imparts no actual harm to anyone, it simply reject the statement of someone else. That person may be offended that you reject their opinion, but, freedom from offense is not a guarantee provided against discrimination.
In the larger point, I am somewhat sympathetic to homosexual marriage - though not the current argumentation. The reasoning is because I am familiar with those aspects of the homosexual community that the community is currently thrusting into the shadows. It is far and away the most highly sexualized culture I have ever seen. Far an away. It dwarfs the fraternity culture. As CB writes that gay marriage is legal in Spain, I wonder if he has ever seen the reality of Barcelona's gay culture? The hedonism that proliferates among the culture? The anonymous sex that very often spills from the clubs onto the streets and parks of Barcelona?
So yes, marriage, the commitment to only one man or woman, stands as a stark improvement to the highly sexualized hedonism that prevelates the homosexual community.
Interestingly enough, it was knowledge of exactly this aspect of the homosexual community that, in the UK, caused lawmakers who authorized gay marriage to put in the draft a clause that barred adultery from being a grounds for divorce in gay marriage. Now exactly what kind of marriage is that?

The problem that the proponents of Prop 8 ran into was that the State had already contra-indicated all of the standard arguments against SSM -- as a result the arguments still left on the table that had not previously been contra indicated were very, very weak cultural arguments which were in actuality religious arguments. It was the moderately unique situation that California was in that prompted the Obama argument -- however, that was rejected by both the proponents and the opponents of Prop 8. While there are probably at least 4 Justices who would be willing to opine that gender-orientation is a class protected from discrimination, its not completely clear where Justice Kennedy may stand. Since the Court has an option to duck the question in that case, namely by deciding either the proponents didn't have standing, or that jurisdiction was improvidently granted, they may not decide the case on the merits but simply dismiss it. The result of that will be no finding on equal protection. The Church's brief curiously defended an attack that never came in the other sides brief, namely they defended against an establishment clause attack --that was not actually launched in the response brief of the opponents. The Proponents brief was so weak that I am led to believe that they weren't really trying to win, but merely to further establish the Constitutional shield for future litigation -- if some of the radical gays decide to go after them in some way. It is also very possible that the DOMA case will be decided via a plurality opinion, with four opining to strike it down on equal protection grounds and Kennedy opining to strike it down on State rights grounds. If both cases are decided in accordance with the above, then the controversy is not over and we will see more Supreme Court Appeals.

With regards to how a person becomes "gay", the distinction is becoming important to the Church. I am not sure it is important anymore in the civil arena as there seems to be sufficient evidence at present that whether it is born or bred -- by the time a person is an adult capable of making a choice, the orientation may not as a practical matter be reversible, and therefore the Courts really aren't going to give a rip. In the Church, however, it does make a difference because of the notion that if its not hardwired, then possibly it can be simply a matter of choice and if it is just a matter of choice that starts to sound like mental sinning is going on. The Church, however, seems to be moving toward the notion that mere orientation is not sinful and not due to bad mental hygene, but rather in many cases not something the person can do something about -- hence it would be unjust to punish or look down on them, but they are still stuck in an awkward situation that the Lord will have to "fix" during the resurrection, just like the single person who would have had they had the appropriate opportunity.

This is not an easy situation to be in, but it is probably a situation that we as Mormons are just going to have to live with, because our system of eternal governance depends on pairing people up male and female. On the other hand, it does not help if people keep firing off bigoted arguments about people with gender orientation issues. Yes, there are probably some gays who are just sex addicts, or who are gay because its the "hip" thing to do, but to generalize that to all gays is innappropriate -- just as it would be innappropriate to say that all heterosexuals are righteous and chaste. To me, in strictly my own speculation, it appears that the Church has made and established its doctrine for Constitutional shield purposes, but is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the positions and arguments being made by some of its social conservative allies on the issue and wants to disengage from the issue politically. That seems like a very reasonable approach. I don't have a problem with the Church's internal policy on homosexuality and SSM as far as members go, my only concern has been when we have stepped beyond our own and gave the impression that we are imposing our standards on everyone.

wenglund · May 13, 2013

I guess it really comes down to you being happy with a much broader area of control for govt. I am not comfortable with larger more powerful style of govt.

The libertarian argument works against both sides of the SSM debate (if government should get out of the marriage and family law business, then that does away with legalizing SSM), and ought to be considered were it even remotely feasible. It isn't. It makes for an interesting and enlightening philosophical exercise, but little or nothing more. So, why bother?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund · May 13, 2013

Although I don't believe that the Church should ever recognize gay marriage in a religious sense since it clearly is inconsistent with our basic structural doctrine, my tendency is to think that we fumbled our approach to this we should have stayed in the religious forum and treated it strictly as a doctrinal issue and then concentrated on the transition to a new world. My problem was with our approach, not our position.

In other words, the Church should compartmentalize just like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

The libertarian argument works against both sides of the SSM debate (if government should get out of the marriage and family law business, then that does away with legalizing SSM), and ought to be considered were it even remotely feasible. It isn't. It makes for an interesting and enlightening philosophical exercise, but little or nothing more. So, why bother?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The libertarian position would consistently say either give everyone civil unions, or give everyone marriage equality, or with some of the more radical libertarians it would say government simply gets out of the business or regulating the intimate relations of consenting adults altogether. Those libertarians who are against SSM aren't true libertarians, but rather a morphed hybrid of Christian Right and libertarian.

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

In other words, the Church should compartmentalize just like you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure what that means, but if it means that the Church in America should respect separation of Church and State, yes.

wenglund · May 13, 2013

The libertarian position would consistently say either give everyone civil unions, or give everyone marriage equality, or with some of the more radical libertarians it would say government simply gets out of the business or regulating the intimate relations of consenting adults altogether. Those libertarians who are against SSM aren't true libertarians, but rather a morphed hybrid of Christian Right and libertarian.

You have a self-serving way of twisting everything, including your view of libertarianism, to fit your warped perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Stone holm · May 13, 2013

You have a self-serving way of twisting everything, including your view of libertarianism, to fit your warped perspective.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I am not a libertarian -- but have a lot of libertarian friends since I live right across the river from the State which was targeted for takeover by the Libertarians as does Bikeemikey -- Libertarians are a major third party in NH. So I don't think that I am very far off on my view of their position. But, I realize everyone that doesn't agree with your worldview is warped...so I guess I am warped.

wenglund · May 13, 2013

Not sure what that means, but if it means that the Church in America should respect separation of Church and State, yes.

I included a link to the definition of the word so that the meaning would be clear--at least to those who are capable of seeing things from different perspectives. Since you evidently aren't capable, it isn't surprising that you would jump to the false conclusions that it had something to do with your warped ideas about constitutional constraints (which are about what the government can or can't do, and not Churches).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Daniel2 · May 13, 2013

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6ZDiYZc7zPo/UZFUlYA2FPI/AAAAAAACamA/gQC4sv8TvWY/s1600/VictoryMinnesota.jpg Edited May 13, 2013 by Daniel2

wenglund · May 13, 2013

Well, I am not a libertarian -- but have a lot of libertarian friends since I live right across the river from the State which was targeted for takeover by the Libertarians as does Bikeemikey -- Libertarians are a major third party in NH. So I don't think that I am very far off on my view of their position. But, I realize everyone that doesn't agree with your worldview is warped...so I guess I am warped.

I happen to be a moderate libertarian, and quite familiar with libertarianism, including the more radical arms of that political philosophy. So, when you, as a non-libertarian, portended to describe my political philosophy, it was clear, from what I know of myself and like-minded thinkers, that you were actually far off and warped. My calling your view "warped" had nothing to do with you having a different point of view from mine--your projective insinuation notwithstanding.

Since Bikemikey has more radical libertarian views than me, I will let him confirm or deny what I have said about your depiction of libertarianism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 13, 2013 by wenglund

wenglund · May 13, 2013

http://4.bp.blogspot...ryMinnesota.jpg

Seems more and more blue states are turning purple.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bikeemikey · May 13, 2013

I happen to be a moderate libertarian, and quite familiar with libertarianism, including the more radical arms of that political philosophy. So, when you, as a non-libertarian, portended to describe my political philosophy, it was clear, from what I know of myself and like-minded thinkers, that you were actually far off and warped. My calling your view "warped" had nothing to do with you having a different point of view from mine--your projective insinuation notwithstanding.
Since Bikemikey has more radical libertarian views than me, I will let him confirm or deny what I have said about your depiction of libertarianism.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I find it highly unlikely that you are even a moderate libertarian. Libertarian principles normally rest on the notion of govt restriction to the narrowest possible moral principle of harm. You consistently make arguments for govt action based of a wide range of very broad moral considerations the produce massive govt intrusion into private behavior and major govt overreach.

Stoneholms assessment of the libertarian position is a little more broad than I would be comfortable with... Though it is a reasonable overview.

I do not believe there is a coherent libertarian argument for the restriction of SSM while marriage is a a state endorsed contract.

I am on the fence about current libertarian positions that make the govt the arbitrator of marriage in general. The best libertarian position removes the govt from marriage all together.

jwhitlock · May 13, 2013

Your requirement for additional evidence is understandable and reasonable. It is however not something I can provide.
...
Twenty years ago it would have been homosexuality is a sin, thereby making the church anti-homosexual (anti-gay).
The nuance of the current days communication by the church on the subject, in my opinion, is much better. It makes it easier to hate the sin and love the sinner.
As such, I don't think that we need to look at what the church has done in the public sphere at all to arrive at the conclusion we have been anti-gay. It is sufficient to say the church is anti-sin, being gay was a sin, therefore we were anti-gay.
Right now in the church being gay is not a sin. Engaging in gay acts is a sin. We have moved from being anti-gay to anti-gay acts.

There's one significant difference between 20 years ago and now that contradicts this. In the past, those with SSA, but who didn't act upon it, generally kept to themselves and didn't come out of the closet as being gay. Hence, the gays most visible in society were the ones that were also active with gay behaviors. From a societal standpoint, being gay and gay behavior were virtually always connected, so it seemed logical (because of insufficient demographic studies) to link the two together. Since gay behavior was sinful, and the gays we were generally aware of practiced gay behavior, being gay was considered something that apparently always led to sin.

The church's pronouncements at the time appear to be consistent with that viewpoint which was consistent with how society viewed gays.

However, it is also apparent that during that time, the church was somewhat conflicted about how gays should be treated, as evidenced by various attempts (still based on incomplete information about gays) to deal with "being gay".

Fast forward a few years, and we now have more information because more people have come out of the closet and more studies have been conducted. Accordingly with new information, the church has adjusted its stance over time to where it is today - and that stance today is decidedly NOT anti-gay.

So the question remains. Do the church's actions 20 years ago concerning gays make it anti-gay, using a presentist definition of what anti-gay really means (think "Westboro")? I don't really think so. Twenty years ago, being anti-gay meant actively persecuting gays, which is something that I'm not aware that the church as an institution has ever done (remember - disagreeing with or opposing legislation or agendas does not evidence being anti-gay in and of itself). The church's actions could never be compared even with a presentist definition of "anti-gay", again using Westboro as a benchmark.

When we consider the accusation of what being anti-gay really means, we need to take a hard look at intent. We can do that with clearly anti-gay organizations and individuals; in those cases as we compare the church against those benchmarks, adjusting those benchmarks for time as needed, I think that we really don't find systematic anti-gay activity within the church as an institution. They made mistakes in trying to deal with the issue of being gay, but frankly dealing with an issue when actively ostracizing / shunning / purging gays as a policy would be so much easier is evidence that the church was really trying to do the best it could, which doesn't qualify as being anti-gay.

jwhitlock · May 13, 2013

Wow was just reading the Journal of Discourses vol 2, didn't realise that BY not only referenced the curse of Cain regarding the Priesthood, but also argued that it made slavery also justified. Really wonder now what Elder Morrison meant by "malignant" .

So, where's the reference to the Ensign article you claimed to be reading?

wenglund · May 13, 2013

Wade,
I find it highly unlikely that you are even a moderate libertarian. Libertarian principles normally rest on the notion of govt restriction to the narrowest possible moral principle of harm. You consistently make arguments for govt action based of a wide range of very broad moral considerations the produce massive govt intrusion into private behavior and major govt overreach.

Wrong on a number of levels. My considerations have been almost exclusively rational rather than moral. And, my considerations care less about private behaviors except as they substantially and negatively impact on the public. And, the marital incentives and regulations I support are those intended to limit the burden on the government, and thus the size of government, rather than massive intrusion of government. Since you got so many things wrong, it isn't surprising that you would question my moderate libertarianism.

Stoneholms assessment of the libertarian position is a little more broad than I would be comfortable with... Though it is a reasonable overview.

Unbelievable! You question my moderate libertarianism because I believe government should be involved only in traditional marriage (and this for reasons of limiting the burden of marital and family relations on the government), and yet you view Stone holm's overview of libertarianism as "reasonable" when that overview expands the involvement of government, for no good reason, to include homosexual relationships? Are you serious?

I do not believe there is a coherent libertarian argument for the restriction of SSM while marriage is a state endorsed contract.

There doesn't need to be such a specific coherent argument since, as I explained, a more radical libertarian argument against government involvement in marriage, is, by logical extension, an argument against SSM. How did you not know this?

Either way, Stone holm's "overview" of libertarianism doesn't speak to the lack of coherent arguments for the restriction of SSM. Quite the contrary. He claims that libertarianism supports either civil unions for both or marriage for both. In other words, he is claiming that libertarians argue for government involvement extending beyond heterosexual relationships to also include homosexual relationships. You really think that is a "reasonable" perception of libertarianism?

I am on the fence about current libertarian positions that make the govt the arbitrator of marriage in general. The best libertarian position removes the govt from marriage all together.

Stone holm's "overview" suggested just the opposite. So, how could it be "reasonable?"

Given what you have said above, and your claim to being on the fence, I am starting to question whether you, yourself, are libertarian, and I am beginning to wonder whether your constant questioning of me about government involvement, is a ruse. It is beginning to look to me like you actually support SSM, and you have been unwittingly plying an argument against traditionalists hoping to further your position, which, as it turns out, actually works against your own position. And, when called on it, you now claim to be "on the fence."

Either you are for expanding government involvement to include homosexual relationships, or you are against government involvement altogether. If you are for the former, then it doesn't make sense to argue the latter. If you are for the latter, then logically you are against the former. You can't logically have it both ways. Please, make up your mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 13, 2013 by wenglund

gree0232 · May 13, 2013

I find it very interesting that very hostile people accuse others of being hostile.

There is nothing hostile about stating a theory and supporting it with strong evidence.

The reason that whether homosexuality is choice or not is that, as I have explained, it is exactly that which is at issue in the current legal discourse over gay marriage. As I have explained, which is now somehow hostile to explain this, the form of discrimination is based on the same concept of immutability that defines other forms of discrimination - i.e. its immutable (or not). If homosexuality is indeed born into us, if we have no ability to exercise our God given agency, then yes, it is descrimination of the first order to deny homosexuals equality.

If there is a component of choice - then it is not descrimination at all.

It is a cut and dry legal question.

Could it be that the scientific data is not as strong s I believe? Of course. I see no one making a science based case in support of homosexuality being immutable. Indeed, the scientific evidence where we would expect to find it ... is simply not there. Again, if homosexuality is genetic, then by Mendel's proof's, it shoudl be recessive. There are cases of lesbian mothers and gay fathers who have children through one method or another, and their chidlren are ... heterosexual. That is impossible if the parents only have the recessive 'gay' gene to pass along. Furthermore, the mapped human genome can find no gay gene corroberating that initial data point. We also have, as I have shown repeatedly, people's whose sexuality evolves over time ... indeed, in college there were young men and women who made sport of trying to 'turn' homosexuals - and every notch on their belt is a strike against the claim of immutable sexuality.

To state these things in a factual manner is neither hostile, nor does it cross the line on anything. Rather, it demonstartes what I most strongly disagree with in homosexual marriage debate - the public roasting and demonization whose goal is to prevaricate a facts based discussion.

Worse, in rejecting the current line of argumentation all manner of assumptions are foisted about intentions and character that are simply uncalled for, and whose purpose appears to be, as I exclaimed, to push the darker side of the homosexual community into the shadows. Things do not remain in the shadows. For any of us.

And there is something to be said about an objective analysis of claims. I wonder for a second how many homosexuals realize the dangers of genetic cause for their sexuality in an era of gene therapy? Gay? No problem, we'll just change your genes, and you are cured. Is accepting this line of thought really in the best interests of the homosexual community? Because it makes the current argument easier?

Worse, is the implication of legal standards and doctrine. Accepting that a form of homosexuality, without evidence (or becaise as best said the available evidence isn't good enough - when none is presenting in dissenting position), is a standard that must surely apply to other forms of sexuality.

That key question of immutability has legal standing OUTSIDE the homosexual debate. If it is decrimination to deny gay marriage because the sexuality of the individual is immutable and unchangeable ... then so to mustit be for other forms of sexuality. That places all manner of legal imputis on clearly deviant forms of sexuality - like pedophila and necrophilia to name but a few. If indeed they are 'just born that way', and the scientific documentation needed to support that is merely the supposition that the science may not be clear ... then legally is discrimination to criminalize this activity. Their sexuality is merely immutable - unchangable.

Again, I am not totally hostile to the ideals of gay marriage, and, as I have stated, having seen the overt sexuality of the community, it may even bring some badly needed stability to community. That is a question that is best left to testing rather than leaping. The states that have legalized it should be allowed to see what happens and data points gathered to ascertain effectiveness ... this is in linhe, BTW, with recently published briefs from the SCOTUS who have publicly declared that thy are hestitent to use the bench to make a sweeping change.

Finally, there is the component of choice verses immutability. It is this line of inquiry that most defines my position on sexuality in general: we are responsible for our actions - period - end of discussion. If someone is struggling with promiscuity, that is certainly a difficult road to travel. However, at no point would anyone accept the excuse that the person just was a promiscuous person and unable to change who he or she was ... therefore the promiscuity and all its consequences are ... what exactly? Gone? Won't happen any more? Why when these sexual temptations occur to the opposite gender do we suddenly believe that these sexual im[ulses are normal? Do the consequences of promiscuity suddenly disappear because the attraction is same gender? Why then is our counsel in these two similiar situations ... fundamentally opposite?

What is most at issue in this debate, in my opinion, is the proper subordination of sexual desire our lives. It speaks first and foremost to the first commandment, to worship no God other than God - and sex and its potentially addictive qualities, particularly in this day and age, isn't something to dismiss on the unproven addage of immutability. he legal implications of acceoting such a claim go well beyond the homosexual debate, and it is the unwise who allow themselves to become so swept up in the current emotionalism of the question that we lose sight of greater principles and complications by adopting a win at all costs attitude to current arguements.

In the end, there is enough room in scripture that the homosexual community can make a compelling case, and with patience and time, should that be right, it will come to fruitition. It is there case to make however.

Again, the current form of demonization, "agree with me or you are a bigot," is emotional blackmail of the first order and I reject as whole heartedly as is humanly possible. Second, the claim of sexual immutablity is dubious at best and undermines both personal responsibility and serious legal implication for truly deviate forms of sexuality, thus I reject it whole heartedly.

At no point does that cross the line into rejecting a person because he or she is homosexual - it does reject the claim that one is powerless to control their homosexuality. The later, I simply do not buy. Nor would I buy such an excuse from anyone struggling with an sexual aspect.

gree0232 · May 13, 2013